Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Crysyn

      Only help if you can be helpful

      Hey All, A topic has come up of late in the IRC channel in regards to the general feel of the forums and the community that supports them. Things have progressed further than I would have liked with out this being addressed more publicly because I would much rather have snubbed this out sooner rather than later.. but I have been busy. Here is the general rule I would like people to follow: Wheaton's Law "Don't be a dick." Those of you from the IRC channel know that this is the only rule I ask people in there to follow and we generally have a good and lively time chatting about all manner of things. This is basic rule that just about everyone understands and I am going to expand it to the forums from here moving forward. If you can not help people in a helpful and polite manner then I simply ask you to stop. Now I generally take a back seat to moderating the forums as I like to participate in the suggestions forum fairly heavily at times and would rather do so as a forums user than a moderator. But I am also fairly well known for being the person who constantly puts their foot down and so I am stepping up and doing so on here. If you find yourself unable to respond to a message politely then I ask that you do not respond. This mostly focuses on the increasing level of hostility found within the Suggestion forum as well as the Server forum. I do not care if this is the 30th some odd time you have seen someone make the same suggestion. Or even if the new post on an older topic is one entry above the old one. I expect the members of this forum to respond politely to the user, new or old, and point to the older topic if it applies and even go the extra step to suggest they either add in new information or to summarize the outcome of the previous discussion based upon the new post's entry into it. That is what we are here for, that is why I close most topics instead of deleting them, so that they can be found and referenced down the road. The next topic is the slew of derailment attempts I have seen as of late. If you want to have fun and joke around that is what the off topic forum is for and pretty much anything goes there. I do not expect to read a suggestion thread and have to go through 3 pages of image memes people have shot back and forth. Quite simply this is a waste of my time to read and then have to clean up. Now for the summary. I am going to start taking a more active role, especially in policing the suggestion forum, and handing out warn levels to people whom I see doing this. These will be indiscriminate and applied not to just the first person who derails or is impolite on a topic or response, but to everyone whom follows the lead of that person. As I do not like doing things with out giving you all warning this post shall serve as that warning. If you have a desire to bring this topic up with me then I invite you to do so on the IRC channel. Lets raise the level of quality and grow the community. Let us not descend into the quality often found on the minecraft or league of legend forums. There is simply no need for that here. Be passionate about things, just do not be abusive.
    • Kittychanley

      Offline Servers

      Recently I've seen a few server listings showing up on the first page of the Servers forum that have been closed for an extended period of time, but have recently gotten a reply from a new member who didn't realize the server is offline. To help prevent this from happening in the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you could use the report function on the original post of any servers that have been confirmed as offline, so that the topic may be locked. If you are the admin of a server and plan on taking the server offline, please use the report function on the original post of your topic to let the TFC Staff know that the topic should be locked. If you are the admin of a server that has a locked topic, and would wish to bring the server back online, please use the report function on the original post of the topic to let the TFC Staff know that the topic should be unlocked. As always, please remember to follow rule #3 of the servers forum and update your topic title to contain the version of TFC that the server is currently running. You can do so by editing the OP, and then clicking on "Use Full Editor."

Darmo

Contributor
  • Content count

    770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Darmo


  1. Ya, I'd think it might be worth trying to re-use the old TFC1 texture.  I am imagining a lot of people will have the same problem.  Or at least make it not looks so much like sand.

    0

  2. 6 hours ago, ChunkHunter said:

    Edit: I've not encountered any clay yet,  either. 

    In my experience, most average length rivers have about 1 deposit.  So it's not very common.  It'll spawn around lakes as well I think, but the lake itself seems to delete most of the deposit, so it's hard to spot.  Easiest way is just to travel up a river till you hit it.  It looks a lot like sand so you have to be watchful.  It's not as obvious as in TFC1.  But it's bright, and interrupts the gravel river banks.  So the darker the stone of your island, the easier it is to spot.

    0

  3. Haven't had much time for testing of late, but I noticed in clay crafting, if you don't successfully complete a shape, it still uses up the clay.  Didn't know if that was intended since it's not how it worked in TFC1. 

    It's also kind of funny how when you knap stone tools, the resulting tool heads actually get heavier.  Game balance though I guess.

    I like how the encumbrance thing looks so far.  I think it'll be good that it stays away from exact numbers.  It seems that the bar in the hud, the big long one that I assume is for encumbrance, doesn't work yet?

     

    0

  4. 4 hours ago, R.o.N1N said:

    I can not assemble a workbench (open locked cells).

    Ya, I don't think Bioxx has coded that yet.  The game is VERY early alpha stages.  You can't make a saw or any metal tools yet, never mind the stuff that requires a saw to make it.  The stone age isn't complete yet, even.  The only way to "solve" the problem is go creative mode. 

    0

  5. Adobe bricks would be good, as there was a great demand for them for TFC1, given that pretty much every LP I watched used that mod that brought in adobe bricks.  The rest of the stone age stuff are a bit 'meh' to me, unless they do in fact get incorporated into a mechanic of resisting mob attack.  The plaster and half timber stuff is what I'd be most wanting.  In TFC1 I would keep all raw chalk and granite blocks, because they were the best simulation of plaster that could be had  in vanilla TFC1.  But that was very tedious.  It'd be really great to be able to make plaster.  Maybe gypsum would be the 'easy-mode' way to get it, with baking lime the 'hard way'.

    0

  6. Slingshots depend  upon elastic material.  Basically rubber, and irl were not possible till vulcanized rubber was discovered in the mid-1800s.  Slings on the other hand, have existed god-only-knows how long.  But have also been suggested before.     A lot.   Like, many timesA ridiculous amount, honestly, for what would be an early-game weapon, abandoned in the mid-to-late game, or at best kept for hunting.

    0

  7. Thanks, it went through a lot of revision so I'm glad it made some sense.  I did totally forget to mention one other characteristic that could separate containers, that being speed of opening.  So chests and large vessels could open faster, barrels could have a pause, bins a longer pause, and crates could have nails in the texture, and require the player to right click each one with a hammer to open the crate.   In that scenario maybe crates could have a lot of slots, since they would not be quick-access.  Safes/vault doors would have a code to input, and then either instant, or some additional pause.

    Also  I was going to suggest having bins maybe only show half their inventory, with the rest of the slots light grey for empty or dark grey for occupied.  This would kind of represent that they are mass-storage solutions, not great for finding what you put in them fast.

    1

  8. So I wanted to make a case for a non-enumerated system of containers and inventory. I was planning on making a separate post, but ultimately it's all about encumberance, so I decided to continue this thread.  Originally I was going to propose is a system that does not use weight at all, but found some problems so now am basically proposing to keep TFC1's system of size and weight, that does not use any numbers.  This is as opposed to the OP and in Konlii's tier-based weight/encumbrance thread.

    On 11/13/2015 at 4:36 PM, Bioxx said:

     what we gain is a more fully realized world with a purpose to a vanilla mechanic (minecarts) that even mojang has yet to provide.

    THE TLDR:  In a nutshell, I think a non-enumerated system of size and weight, like TFC1 used, would be sufficient to accomplish the above goals.   The main 'new' mechanic would be to limit heavy items like ore (and building materials if desired) to the hotbar only, and not allow them in the inventory itself.  By doing this you limit the player's native slots that can carry the heavy items, and so it becomes much easier to make conveyances that are superior in capacity.  Specifically if ore blocks dropped themselves, and then had to be pulverized for ore, those ore blocks could be made to fit only on the hotbar, and stack very low (4 or 8, perhaps).  Furthermore, I think a non-enumerated system would be simpler to balance.   Rather than having to decide how much every single thing weighs, and how much every container will hold, and trying to balance it all, and having the 'realists' complain, you only worry about 'what should fit in this container' and 'what is the effect of this weight on the player'.  There is still some balancing, but less detaily, I think.  I think it would also be easier for players to understand and plan around: it's much easier to understand how many slots you have available I think, vs figuring out how much weight capacity you need to allow for a given task (I'm assuming that in an enumerated system the player would have a meter or number to tell them how much they are currently carrying, so knowing how much weight they are already carrying would not be hard).  That's the idea in a nutshell.  I'd now like to try and portray how this system could function, and the variety of containers and conveyances that might be used to create a dynamic and interesting system.

    SIZE AND WEIGHT CATEGORIES
     

    Spoiler

    SIZE - basically just fit what fits inside what.  The actual effects of carrying things are based on the weight descriptor.

    TINY - tiny items fit in vessels.   Seeds, raw food, feathers, straw, etc.

    SMALL - small items fit in backpacks, NOT in vessels.  Sticks, stones, saplings, small prepared foodstuffs, and vessels.

    MEDIUM - medium items fit in barrels and chests, or just in the inventory.  Examples would be most clothing, probably leather armor.  Also, for balance purposes, scrolls, potions, and books.   Also, for those that might want a 'easy-mode' building experience, you would add 'building' items like planks, dirt, sand, cobble, raw and smooth stone, etc.  Some items like single-handed weapons, tools, logs, and ingots might be medium, but would still be restricted to their 'special' storage solutions, as in TFC1.

    LARGE - large items require the new mechanic - they cannot go in the inventory, or most carryable containers.  They only fit on the hotbar, back, or offhand slots (and if wearable, the appropriate wear slot) and sometimes multiple slots.    Large items fit inside of bins and crates, NOT barrels or chests.  I do not know if forbidding items from inventory, but allowing in hotbar is code-possible.  but for the sake of this proposal, I'm assuming so. Examples: double Ingots, sheets, double sheets, metal armor, quern wheel, ore blocks, most building blocks, doors, and empty barrels, chests, and large vessels

    HUGE - Huge items also only fit on the hotbar, and sometimes wear slots.  They are containers to contain large items: crate, bin, pack frame, heavy pack frame.  If the code does not need the container to be larger than the item (that is, if the container can be size large and also be specified to accept large items) then this category may not be needed.

    GIGANTIC - Gigantic items are conveyances that need to be able to hold bins and crates.  Hotbar only.   Again, may not be needed depending on how code works

    So you have several gradations of size, and every single size is related to certain types of containers, inventory slots, and conveyances.  The first 3 can go in the player's inventory, the last three only the hotbar and wear slots.  There are no useless size categories. 

    WEIGHTS - Weight denotes the effect that that carrying the item has on the player/conveyance

    NORMAL - No additional affects.  This is intended to cover everything through medium size, and include certain large items that are not particularly heavy (fishing poles, sacks).  For 'easy' building and mining, ore blocks and building materials would be this.

    HEFTY - Hefty items should mostly be large in size, and so will only fit on the hotbar and/or special wear slots.  If it is on the hotbar, it will slow the player, and prevent them from jumping or climbing ladders (player can still walk up stairs).  This could include things like armor and two-handed weapons, empty barrels, empty large vessels, and empty crates.   For a mid-range building/mining experience, ore blocks and building materials would be this - a single ore block could be carried in offhand+hotbar, and not restrict.  But any more and you get the restrictions.  This would pretty strongly encourage conveyances I think.

    HEAVY - Heavy items would be just like Hefty items, except that they will apply the slow/no-jump/no-ladder debuff no matter what, even when carried in the appropriate wear slot.  This will include things like full barrels, full crates, and empty bins.  Alternatively, rather than slow, it could simply prevent the player from running.  For a conveyances-basically-required experience, building material and ore blocks would be this.

    MASSIVE - Massive items (and heavier) would be items that only fit on the hotbar, and immobilize the player.   Massive items fit in pack frames and thus can be carried by a horse/camel/llama using a pack frame.  Bloomery doors and bins would be examples.  Putting anything heavier inside the pack frame destroys it and drops the item on the ground.

    ENORMOUS - Enormous items can be carried by a mule, using a heavy pack frame.  Blast Furnace, probably various other higher tier process blocks and parts.  Putting anything heavier inside the heavy pack frame destroys it and drops the item on the ground.

    IMMENSE - Immense items can only be carried by a minecart.  No specific examples at this time, but presumably high-tier machinery and the like.  Putting anything heavier in the minecart destroys it and drops the item on the ground.

    COLOSSAL - Colossal items can only be carried on a flatbed minecart.  No specific examples at this time, but presumably high-tier machinery and the like.

    I think all the goals desired could be accomplished just using the above restrictors.  This would avoid making players do maths, and having a complicated balancing of what gets what numbered capacities and weights.   Normal mining could involve ore blocks which are Large and Normal, in which case the capacity of the hotbar is the limiting factor.  Or it could be made more difficult, by making the ore Large and Heavy, in which case the player will have not only the capacity limit of the hotbar, but also the fact that they are slow/no-jump/no-ladder if carrying more than 1 block.  They can carry 1 block in their offhand and still run/jump/ladder, but this will be tedious if the player is taking the block outside the mine.  This would provide a pretty heavy incentive to use conveyances.  And if someone wants super-easy mining/ building, then make those blocks medium/normal.

    CONTAINER TRAITS

    Spoiler

    Next, I want to talk about special traits that could define containers, and make certain containers better than others for certain tasks.  Some of these will require extra mechanics, which I will talk about.  I'm going to list traits that might apply to a broad variety of containers here.  Some containers will have unique characteristics, which I'll talk about in their specific explanation.  I know this stuff will seem too detailed to some.  And indeed maybe as a whole it's too much, but I wanted to put some ideas out there.

    SIMULTANEOUS SLOT OCCUPATION - Hopefully it is possible to make some items take more than one wear slot at a time.  This was touched on in the containers and sheathes thread.  In that thread it was applied to two-handed weapons, but in this context, full barrels would be worn in the offhand, and also occupy a hotbar slot at the same time.  Representing the player using two hands to roll the barrel.

    NEW SLOTS - I'm envisioning 4 new slots; the belt slots, which would appear beside the offhand slot.  The back slot would also appear there (The slot is not new, but appearing by the hotbar is).  This would allow the player to access belt or back containers without going into inventory.  These 5 slots would be ghosted out if the player is not wearing the right containers.   In the context of hotbar-only items, these slots will be invaluable in extending the hotbar real estate.  Tools and weapons for instance could be carried in sheathes (sheathes will not appear as containers, but make their associated slot available for tools and weapons).  The sheathe slots could be dedicated for just sheathes, or could perhaps allow more belt pouches/satchels.  Items such as a tool belt might take both sheath slots.  Two handed weapons might occupy both sheathes, and more slots as well.  Any item that can be moved onto the belt or back, is more available hotbar space.

    CONTAMINATION - What if containers could be contaminated?  So you have your backpack of food, but then you toss some coal inside.  you've just contaminated your backpack with coal dust, and it gains a flag.  Maybe simply 'contaminated', or maybe specific to the contamination: 'sooty'.   In any case, all food in the backpack immediately is also flagged contaminated.  To fix this, you put the stack in your grid with a knife, and you get half the stack back, uncontaminated.  A scroll or book might have a 50% chance to become unuseable every time they are put into a contaminated container, or the first time upon contaminated goods being put in the container with the scrolls/books.  Some examples of contaminating goods, followed by specific forms of contamination in parenthesis:  all soil, sand, or gravel (dirty).  Coal (sooty), Meat (bloody), Fish (fishy).  Obviously meat wouldn't contaminate itself, same for fish.  Contaminated containers must be washed (soap?) to remove the flag.  The result of this would be to make the player think about where they're putting stuff.  Some containers will accept only certain foodstuffs, and so either protect them from contaminating agents, or isolating the agents themselves.  Clay vessels of both types (and glass containers) may not pick up spoilage flags, giving them a slight perk vs all other container types.

    DURABILITY - Maybe containers could have durability?  I know many people have expressed an aversion to this, but container durability opens an avenue for a trade skill to affect the quality.  It also opens an avenue for superior containers to be loot, and in SMP creates a market for especially fine containers.  The durability might go down every time an item is put into the container.  This concept could go hand-in-hand with:

    REPAIRABILITY - The player could repair containers.  It would keep an ongoing need for materials to extend container life.  As discussed elsewhere, it could possibly be that you can only repair a container so much, before it's a mass of patches.  In the end you just have to replace it.  In order to prevent bad timing, containers don't just spill their contents and vanish when worn out.  They cease to open.  For worn containers, you have to throw them on the ground and use a knife on them, which destroys the container and spills the contents.  For placed containers, you have to right click them with their assigned mining tool, at which point they vanish and spill their contents.  Or some similar mechanic that allows the player to choose when to destroy the item and get their stuff out.  Clay and glass containers cannot be repaired, and do not get stuck shut.  They simply shatter when they reach 0 durability.

    WEIGHT REDUCTION - Even though I'm proposing a 'non-enumerated' system, I'm not against such a system.  And if numbered weight/encumbrance does become a part of the game, I think an excellent use would be for certain containers to reduce the weight transferred to the player.  So a player could use a wheelbarrow to reduce the weight of the stone inside by 50% maybe.  Baskets could reduce crop weight.  Sheathes reduce weapon/tool weight.  Etc.  And this also provides another hook for skill to add quality, as it could add bonus weight reduction by increments of 1%, which would allow a very fine gradation according to skill.

    SPOILAGE REDUCTION - I would propose expanding the spoilage modifiers of containers in order to encourage the player to use certain containers for certain foodstuffs, and also to make large clay vessels more attractive.   I would propose most 'general purpose containers' including chests and all leather containers, increase spoilage slightly (10 or 20%) or at best be neutral. Then, baskets reduce raw vegetable/fruit spoilage, creels reduce fish spoilage, clay vessels of both types reduce spoilage for all foods slightly, and ice boxes reduce it for all foods quite a bit.  Especially for baskets, what it introduces is a low-tier container type that the player can use for early game containers, but that still remain useful later, for gathering specific foodstuffs.  By making large clay vessels non-sealable, they can be given a slight innate preservation bonus, so that they're not just an inferior barrel.

    FINES LOSS - Fines loss is the notion that some containers aren't appropriate for very small items.  Sand, gravel, grain, and coal might be examples.  Expressed as a percentage, it is the percent chance that, upon putting an item (or stack) in a container, 1 of the stack will be lost.   The idea being to encourage  use of their specific containers,or clay vessels, which have 0 loss.  This would be a very specific characteristic.  For instance a reed hamper has a high loss rate, but sand and gravel blocks won't even fit.  So really grain and coal and other small loss-able items would be the major risks.  This event would need to be accompanied by a message or sound, to let the player know it's not a bug.

     

    CONTAINERS AND SKILL

    Spoiler

    Would it not be great if containers could exist in grades, with higher grades having better characteristics?  In TFC1, a vessel is just a vessel, a chest is a chest.  you'd never take them as loot, they basically have 0 value.   But I think having multiple grades opens up the possiblity of containers as loot, and also containers as a trade good in SMP servers.  I would propose that higher grade containers be semi-random, like dwarf fortress.  So if there are five levels of container quality (normal, fine, excellent, masterful, Legendary) a novice might have a small chance to produce a fine product, but no chance at excellent or masterful, nevermind legendary.  At adept skill, a larger fine chance, but also small excellent chance. At master you might be more likely to produce a fine container than normal, with also a good chance at excellent and masterful.  Legendary containers would only be able to be produced by a master, but even then only at a small chance.  This would be like a 'legendary' item in dwarf fortress.  This provides that extra little 'kick' to keep masters occupied, even at max skill level.  Even at lower levels, people love surprises.  Will you just make that one backpack and be happy with it?  Or will you ranch the hell out of animals and produce the finest backpacks around?  I think it would add a lot to the production part of the game, potentially.  If a master has a 1% chance to produce a legendary object, you just shifted the meta from just having to use X materials to make the best container possible, to having to on average use 100X the materials, to make a legendary.

    ITEM WEIGHT - Again, if weight does become the thing, a higher skilled artisan could make a lighter container.   This would be easier to do with items having specific weights.  In Konlii's tiered weight system, it might be less easy as the jumps between tiers might be a lot. 

    WEIGHT REDUCTION - For items that reduce the weight of the things they contain, this reduction could be improved for better items.  Again, this could be scaled by percentage points, so very responsive to skill level.  But, it would need to be balanced against the original reduction, the fact you don't want it to reduce weight to 0, and the fact that there will likely be magic to reduce the weight also.

    SLOTS - number of slots could be increased.  At five quality levels, this may be more practical with larger containers - who are only competing with the hotbar - but still, it's a factor.  If a basic item has 5x3=15 slots, you could add four more ranks of 3 to the right and get to 27 at Legendary.  A basic chest could have 10 slots, and expand up to 18 (20 to 36 for double).  And so on.  It's less scaleable than item weight and weight reduction, but I think it could still be significant and responsive.  But, some containers you may not want to even go up 1 per quality level (vessels for instance) so sometimes maybe you just get other improvements.

    DURABILITY, SPOILAGE, FINES LOSS - All of these could also be improved with increasing player skill.

     

    CONTAINER LIST

    Spoiler

    So now that I've given my background thoughts, here's a list of containers I've been operating with.  I've divided it into 3 categories - containers that are intended to be carried, those intended to be placed (though a few can be sealed and carried), and conveyances (which includes mount-related stuff).  For placed containers, an * means they can be sealed and carried.  I've revised these a few times and there may be inconsistencies, due to the spoiler mechanics of these forums.  But it gives some idea.

    WORN CONTAINERS Item type limit Tech Lvl Slots Max Sz/Wght Self Size/Wght Worn On Durability Place? Rack? Repair? Spoil Mod Wght Mod Loss
    Reed pouch All non-liquids stone 4 tiny/Norm Small Belt low No No No 0%   30%
    Reed Basket raw fruit+veggies stone 8 tiny/Norm Small inv/hotbar low Yes No No -10% -25%  
    Reed Hamper All non-liquids stone 8 Small/norm Large back low Yes No No 0%   30%
    Reed Creel Raw fish stone 12 tiny/Norm Small Belt low No Yes No -80% -35%  
    Leather pouch All non-liquids stone 4-8 tiny/Norm Small Belt high No Yes Leather 20%   10%
    Leather Backpack All non-liquids stone 12-20 Small/norm Large back high No Yes Leather 20% -10% 10%
    Leather scroll case Scrolls stone 12-24 tiny/Norm Small Belt high No Yes Leather   -35%  
    leather potion bag Potions stone 12-24 tiny/Norm Small Belt high No Yes Leather   -25%  
    Leather Sheathe 1 Weapon or Tool stone 1 N/A Medium Belt high No Yes Leather   -50%  
    Leather Water Skin water stone 100mb N/A Small Belt medium No Yes Leather      
    Cloth sack All non-liquids copper 12-18 Med/Norm Large Hotbar medium No No cloth 10%   10%
    Frame Pack All non-liquids copper 12-24 Med/Norm Large back high No Yes cloth 20% -20% 5%
    Clay vessel All stone 4-6/100mb tiny/Norm Medium inv/hotbar Shatter Yes No No -10%   0%
    Clay Jug water stone 100mb N/A Medium inv/hotbar Shatter Yes No No      
    Mason's Hod bricks, mortar copper 12 Large/Heavy Large/Hefty Offhand high No No No   -60%  
    Burlap Sack grain copper 12 Med/Norm Large/Norm Hot + Off medium Yes No No 0% -50% 0%
    Coal Scuttle coal copper 12 Small/norm Large/Hefty Hotbar high Yes No No   -50% 0%
    Tool Belt Tools stone 8 Med/norm Large/Norm Belt (2 slots) medium No Yes Leather   -50%  
    Wheelbarrow dirt, sand, etc copper 12-24 Large/Heavy Large/Norm Hot + Off high Yes No planks   -80% 0%
    Sledge Meat & carcasses stone 9 Heavy/Heavy Large/Hefty Hot + Off medium No No No   -60%  

     

    PLACED CONTAINERS Type Limit Tech Lvl Slots Max Size/Wght Self Size/Wght Worn On Durability Place? Rack? Repair? Spoil Mod Wght Mod Loss
    Lg Clay Vessel All stone 9-15/500mb Med/Norm Large/Hefty Hot+Off Very High Yes No No -20%   0%
    Chest All non-liqds copper? 12-18 Med/Norm Large/Norm N/A medium Yes No planks     10%
    Bin All non-liqds copper 12-18 Large/Heavy Huge/Massv N/A Very High Yes No planks     0%
    Barrel* All copper 12-18/10kmb Med/Norm Large/Heavy Hot+Off high Yes No No -20%   0%
    Crate* All non-liqds copper 4 Large/Heavy Large/Heavy Hot+Off Very High Yes No planks     0%
    Gem Cabinet* Gem & rings copper 54 tiny/Norm Large/Heavy Hot+Off Very High Yes No planks   -40% 0%
    Rack tools, weapons+ copper 4 items Med/Norm Large/Norm N/A Infinite Yes No N/A      
    Bookcase books copper 6 books Small/Norm Large/Norm N/A Infinite Yes No N/A      
    Ice Chest all food copper 12 (plus ice) Med/Norm Large/Heavy N/A Very High Yes No zinc plate -50%   0%
    Safe Ingots, jewelry iron 6 Large/Heavy Huge/Immen N/A Very High Yes No Oil     0%
    Vault door Special iron N/A N/A Huge/Immen N/A Very High Yes No Oil     0%

    *=sealable for transport.  large clay vessels would be sealable for processing, but upon breaking the block would spill the contents.

    CONVEYANCE Type Limit Tech Lvl Slots Max Sz/Wght Self Size Worn On Durability Place? Rack? Repair? Spoil Mod Wght Mod Loss
    hand cart All non-liquids copper 12-18 Huge/Massive Gigantic N/A Very High Yes No planks     10%
    horse/camel/llama All non-liquids N/A varies Huge/Massive N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
    donkey All non-liquids N/A varies Huge/Enorm N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
    minecart All non-liquids iron varies Huge/Immense Gigantic N/A Very High Yes No iron     0%
    flatbed minecart All non-liquids steel 1 Huge/Colossal Gigantic N/A Very High Yes No steel     0%
    Leather Saddlebags All non-liquids stone 9-21 Small/normal Medium Mount high No Yes Leather 20% -40% 10%
    pack frame All non-liquids copper 4-8 Huge/Massive Gigantic Mount Very High            
    heavy pack frame All non-liquids iron 6-10 Huge/Enorm Gigantic Mount Very High            

     

     

     

    CONTAINER DETAILS

    Spoiler

     

    A more detailed explanation.  The general frame of operation would no longer be using barrels for long-range transportation.  Sealed barrels and vessels would prevent the player from running, jumping, and using ladders.   The intent is to use conveyances to long-distance travel.  Until the player makes a cart or tames an animal, moving will be inconvenient.  But, given that TFC2 seems to be counting on a more mobile playstyle at least for the first few islands, that may be ok.

    REEDS - The first containers the player makes will be made of reeds.  Or maybe grass if there's no desire to make reeds a new drop.  But grass is super-easy to get.  The player can make a pouch for tiny items, hamper to carry small items on their back, and basket and creel for food.  None improve with skill.  The basket and creel should stay useful later in the game.

    CLAY - the next tech step.  The player can make vessels, which are like pouches but don't fit on the belt, but do give a little preservation bonus (or rather, less penalty).  Also no fines loss, and can be used as a 'clay bucket' if tiers of buckets are desired.  Large clay vessels CANNOT be sealed and moved while full.  Clay containers never have fines loss.

    LEATHER - these will be long-term general use containers. 

    Scroll cases only hold scrolls, but can hold a lot of them.  the scroll case can be worn on the belt, and it would be good if some sort of quick-access could be arranged.  Or maybe the first slot of the scroll case show up on the hotbar, but immediate use.

    Potion Cases only hold potions, but can hold a lot.  Preferably with a quick-access format as mentioned for scroll cases.  For extra utility, there could be a mechanic implemented where any time the player takes falling damage, there is a percent chance that one (or more?) potions carried in their inventory or any container therein, breaks.  UNLESS it is in a potion case, in which case it is protected.

    Sheathes are worn on the belt.  They do not actually contain anything, they merely activate one of the sheathe slots adjacent to the hotbar, so the player can put a weapon or tool there.  If a sheathe is worn on the back and two belt slots, the player can place a two-handed weapon in one of them, which also greys out the other two, plus maybe a hotbar slot. 

    Sacks are large and are worn only on the hotbar, but can hold medium items.  They and frame packs are the only containers that can hold medium items, but don't encumber the player or require two slots.  They're basically for looting.

    Mason's Hod - Non-encumbering when held in the offhand, and holds lots of bricks and mortar.  This is mainly if building is to be made more difficult.  If bricks and mortar fit in inventory, then it would be minimally useful.

    Coal Scuttle - holds large amounts of coal.  player can refill blocks that take coal as a fuel by right-blicking on them with the scuttle.  Perhaps normal right click adds 8 coal, Shift-right-click adds fills to max with coal.  This is placeable, and can be picked up by right-clicking with an empty hand.  Will be more useful if contamination is a thing.

    Tool Belt - holds 8 tools, and takes both sheathe slots on the belt.  It would be good if there were a way to quick-select tools, but in any case, the tools in the first two slots appear on the corresponding sheathe slots next to the hotbar.

    Wheelbarrow - similar to the mason's hod, it holds lots of dirt, sand, gravel, cobble, and stone.

    Sledge - Easy to construct in the field, for use in hauling animal carcasses.  Only really useful if butchering as a more complex mechanic comes to be.

    PLACED CONTAINERS

    In a more complex system, chests and large vessels would be easy to carry, but not sealable.   Their corollaries would be crates and barrels, both of which are sealable, but encumbering.  But they can be sealed and put on conveyances, making the conveyance more efficient.  Bins would not be sealable, but would hold large amounts of almost anything.

    Gem Cabinet - has two trays, each holding 27 gems or jewelry items.  Helps in organizing multiple grades of gems in a smaller space.

    Rack - the standard rack of TFC1.  Can now also hold certain containers, such as creels, baskets, and tool belts.

    Ice Chest - stores and preserves food, and has a separate slot for ice, which fuels it.  It is two blocks tall.

    Safe - stores ingots and jewelry.  Will not fit in any container.  It is immense and can only be carried on a minecart or flatbed.  Has a code mechanism or other way to lock it.

    Vault Door - not technically a container, it's a door.  Goes hand-in-hand with plated blocks which would be immune to breaking, and only able to be removed via right-clicking on 1 of the six sides with a tool (this side will be visually different from the plated sides).  This allows a walk-in vault to be built, with all the removal faces facing inward, and the vault door used to control access.  It can only be disassembled if you have access to the inside of the vault.

    So that's all the basic details.   There would of course be other containers, this was just a basic list.   I was going to add more containers (like Stroam's seed bags) but the spoiler mechanics of this forum and the table I cut and pasted, don't play well.  

    In the early game, large items could be cumbersome to deal with.  The player's first copper mine will probably be where the player sets up operations.    They may well process the ore down in the mine, since it will be somewhat tedious to carry it out, without conveyances or pack frames.  They can carry 1 block at a time and run and jump and climb, but any more and they can't do those.  So they would have to build a staircase out of the mine, and they would have to walk it.  But, once the player has that first saw, they can make a cart, maybe a pack frame and crates, and now they can transport ore more effectively.  There is still the question of what would make the player use minecarts for mining vs pack animals, since pack animals don't require tracks.  It could perhaps be that some ores are even heavier, and cannot be carried by pack animals (or wooden rails).  These would probably be fantasy ores, maybe iron.   If such ores were y-limited to deeper regions, it would make the staircase scenario less practical.   The track problem could also be alleviated somewhat if there are mineshafts - similar to the abandoned mineshafts in vanilla, except not abandoned.  They could provide a good supply of tracks. 

    There could also be added weight categories, for instance that only prevent the player from climbing ladders and jumping, but still allows them to run. 

    But anyway, that's my case on why limiting certain large items to the hotbar could make the non-enumerated system still deserves consideration.

     

     

    2

  9. 29 minutes ago, Stroam said:

    so wearing just armor decreases and carrying nothing takes twice as long as compared to wearing nothing and carrying nothing. That's a 100% speed decrease. So should a full inventory and full plate be equal to 200% speed decrease? 

    I think you meant something like 50% and 75% decreases?  A 100% decrease would be immobilized.  Are we talking in the context of an enumerated weight system?  I'd think it'd be better just to base it on total weight, and the armor weighs a lot?  Unless the plan were to discourage the player from wearing heavy armor constantly, as is the norm in TFC1 (or vanilla, for that matter).  In that case it actually probably would simplify things to just give the armor a speed debuff all it's own.  50% seems like too much to me though.

    0

  10. Ya, I've read before about how full armor was much more mobile that some stereotypes allow.  Probably has a lot to do with the fact that armor and knights declined as armies changed to firearms, and so the remaining armor became more ceremonial, and less well suited for field use.  There was also the matter of jousting armor, which was entirely different from combat armor. 

    0

  11. 4 hours ago, Stroam said:

    What do people think of having certain recipes unlocked by achievements?

    Not totally opposed, but not wild about it.  Logically I'd think a shield would make more sense if you killed a missile-using enemy to unlock it - the assumption being it used it's missiles on you, so you decide you need a shield.  At a minimum, if killing with missile is the gate, it needs to be an actually threatening enemy.  No killing rabbits and chickens to unlock shields. 

    As for armor, I think it remains to be seen how armor shakes out.  Will there even be different types with different resistances?  Or will it merely be differences in effective tier level, and maybe encumbrance?  Unless the differences are significant, I'm not really a fan of unlocking.

    Weapons, so what would the player start with, a knife, axe, and a javelin?  Everything else (presumably at least sword and mace) would have to be unlocked?  If it's only mace and sword, I don't know that there's much point in gating them.  I have a hard time imagining a much larger resistance array as far as weapons go, if we're going by damage type.  I'd forsee people grousing over maces, as that's probably the very first kind of weapon mankind ever had.  I guess to me in general it'd make more sense to have weapons unlocked by obtaining an example of that weapon from an enemy.  Even armor could work that way.  And then you wouldn't automatically unlocked things the first time, assuming mobs dropping weapons and armor is rare.  That might make it less a matter of checking off a box, and more of a surprise-reward-drop situation.  Which might be more enjoyable.

    By 'protected' do you mean has innate or armor resistance?  Because while skeletons are common in vanilla, I'm hoping that in TFC2 they will be far less common.  I would think that there would be humanoid mobs (goblins, orcs, troglodytes, etc) that would fill in the 'general threat' roster.  With more resistant mobs being perhaps more rare.  That could be totally off though. 

    0

  12. 7 hours ago, Stroam said:

    You can forgo the back slot and have the offhand slot for heavy items like rolling a barrel.

    Forgot to mention that I do I like that, although I think keeping the back slot for backpacks and maybe cloaks or something would be a good idea.  What would people think of a meta-change from barrels being the long-range transport option, to carts or pack animals?  So then barrels could prevent you from running/jumping/laddering.   Making the ability to move them more a matter of arranging them, rather than using them to transport goods on your person.

    0

  13. I was envisioning each container having it's own inventory, like vessels in TFC1, but that's a good look, and would handle size variance neatly, and like Stroam says it would allow easy transfer between containers.  But my concern would be that it may not allow for much container size variance.  I was hoping containers could have increased slots, with increased player skill. Maybe as many as 5 different grades.  Although not all would necessarily increase inventory. 

    0

  14. 1 hour ago, Konlii said:

    Basically, the entire concept of encumbrance is thrown out the window and instead you are classing items based on what part of the player inventory they can be put into? 

    That was the 'new' concept, yes.   I mean, I call it 'size' out of habit, and also 'size' is one syllable vs 'encumbrance', but it's the same general notion.  I think you're very correct that both weigh and physical dimensions can play into how an item is classed.  But so the size/encumbrance would factor into where in the inventory things fit, but also what containers they fit in, as it did in TFC1.  I didn't rehash that since it's an old concept.  So for instance vessels could accept up to tiny or small or whatever, backpacks another size larger, chests another size larger, etc.  EXCEPT that there will be cases where certain items have their own specialized piles and racks and so forth, regardless of size.  So it's not only what fits where in the inventory, but also what fits in what containers.  But you're right, there could in theory be different sections of inventory that accept a certain max size.

    I'm a big fan of having a variety of containers, some specialized, and the good thing about enumerated encumbrance, was that a container could offset that, to give that container an advantage.   So you could have a wheelbarrow which might offset 50% of the weight inside, but could only carry dirt, sand, gravel, cobble, etc.  This would encourage the player very strongly to use that wheelbarrow in those situations.   But even better, it allowed there to be a skill production bonus.  So a normal wheelbarrow reduces the weight 50%, but an 'excellent' wheelbarrow reduces it 60%, and 'masterwork' 70%.  And that would be pretty nice I think.  So, there's good things about having numbers.  I just think it's simpler to balance overall, and simpler for the player to grasp, without the numbers.  I feel like a lot of frustration could possibly arise from the player going out to collect resources, and discovering they have plenty of inventory, but not enough encumbrance capacity, and they have to go back home and offload more.  Hitting your encumbrance I think could 'sneak up' on you a lot easier that maxing out inventory/container slots.

    The downside to a size-without-numbers system, is that it becomes harder to give much quality gradation to items - the most obvious is more slots.  So if we assume a player can only carry dirt etc on the hotbar, and a wheelbarrow provides maybe 9 slots, but requires a hotbar slot and the offhand slot, then the player nets as many as 7 additional slots (7 hotbar + 9 wheelbarrow = 16, vs 9 hotbar with no wheelbarrow).  An 'excellent' wheelbarrow could have more slots.  If the base 9 are 3x3, then you could add another column of 3 to the right.  Masterwork another column, etc.  It's not as fine-grained as percent reductions, but it can provide a bonus to skill of craftsmanship, or materials.  It's somewhat easier to do for hotbar-limited items - since there's so few hotbar spaces it's easier to have a container with more slots.  Items that fit in inventory will require either a smaller inventory, or different strategies to provide incentive.  I do have some idea, but I'm going to make a separate post just about containers for that.  As a side note, I am kind of a fan of - well, at least exploring the notion of - starting the player with may just like, 9 available inventory slots, and the clothing they wear makes more available.  I know this sort of thing has been done in other mods.  But that too, is kind of a different topic.

    0

  15. 3 hours ago, chepelink said:

    What can be a 4th factor?

    Fourth factor is size.  As in, physical dimensions.  Like Stroam said, irl a fishing pole is light, but you can't even fit it in a barrel.    The interesting thing is TFC1 *already* had both size (tiny, very small, small, medium, large, huge) and weight (light medium or heavy) according to the wiki.  I never really noticed that before I was researching into this.  Because out of all those classifications, the only mechanical effects that I ever really noticed were that some items fit in vessels/barrels and a couple items can only be carried on the back (full barrels/vessels and anvils).  I don't know if the querns and beds things were just kept small for convenience, or just waiting until better systems(handcarts) were coded, which never happened for TFC1. 

    Stroam there's good ideas there but it's a little OT compared to the OP I think.  I'm going to try to stick with Konlii's original stuff.

    In the context of Konlii's weight system, what I'm going to say is, it's going to come down to mining.  The mining system needs to use conveyances.  Everything else can dance around that, but mining, being integral to tiered advancement in metals, I think can be made into a localized enough activity to not 'slow down' the entire game, but also make minecarts and other animals good and necessary. 

    Before getting into this, I will say that I'm feeling like the 'unstackables' encumbrance still seems a bit much Konlii, unless it's not an absolute.  For instance what if we don't want potions to stack, for game balance sake?  This is how vanilla does it right?  Despite being small, they exist only in stacks of one, I presume to keep the player from just having oceans of potions to breeze through stuff.  I think that's a good mechanic, but I think it's not good to have them weigh huge amounts.  And I can only imagine they would not be the only case - wands, rods, maybe even special books, all might want to be unstackable.  I think it would be better if all items simply had an encumbrance assigned.  But then how to limit the number of weapons, tools, and armor carried?

    My suggestion for limited 'major gear' carried would be - if code-possible - to make add a break-point where items can ONLY be carried on the hotbar and in special slots.  This takes the entire 'inventory' out of the equation, and limits these items purely based on a limited number of slots available, but still leaves the vast player inventory for use with all the little 'collectibles'.    In the context of the OP, I think tier 4 - heavyweight, would be the candidate. 

    Now to back up a bit, the way I'm envisioning the inventory system is the hotbar, the offhand, 4 belt slots, and back slot.  All visible along the bottom.  offhand, back, and belt slots are essentially extensions of the hotbar that only are available for certain items (offhand) or when supplementary items are worn on them (belt and back).  When you're actually in the inventory screen, there are also the vanilla four armor slots, an additional four clothing slots (maybe) and 'baubble' slots for 2 rings, necklaces, etc.  That's just how I envision it, it of course may (probably) won't shake out that way.

    So back to tier 4 encumbrance.  Armor pieces (metal armor that is) can only be carried on the hotbar, or worn in the armor slots.  Not allowed in inventory.  I think this accomplishes Konlii's goal of making armor a cumbersome item, without making it have to weigh insane amounts.  Shields - hotbar or offhand.  Two-handed weapons (as discussed elsewhere) offhand, 1 hotbar slot, and 2 sheathe slots.  Empty barrels - hotbar or back.  Full barrels - hotbar AND offhand (2 slots).  They slow the player immensely, and the player cannot climb ladders or jump, but the player can still move up and down stairs - this is an attempt to simulate 'rolling' the barrel, without forcing Bioxx to animate that.  Although I guess if the barrel were shown in front of the player horizontal, that would still be a nice accessory thing, and similar to the barrel-on-back thing.  This will encourage localization of barrels, and basically allow the player to 'roll' them to a cart for further transport.  Anvils could be same as full barrel, or maybe also have the option to be carried on the back alone.   So that's a few examples.  As many mods as i've seen that toy with inventory slots, I'd hope that limiting some items to hotbar+ slots would be code-possible.   I feel this solution kind of accomplishes Konlii's goal of having certain items come 'at a premium' without having to ramp up the encumbrance levels so much. 

    But now, where I was heading this whole time, mining.   So I'm going a bit OT here, but it's in service of trying to tie this system into the world more.  Basically, I'm thinking for TFC2 it'd be a good idea for ore blocks to drop themselves when mined, and then the player has to process them to get the ore out.  So ore blocks themselves would then be tier 4.  This allows the player to carry a certain amount of them on their hotbar.  But while mining the player will certainly have other things on their hotbar, so they'll have to find a balance.   But if ore block max stack were 8, then the player could carry 72 max and that would be only if they stowed their pick and other hotbar stuff.  Bioxx has suggested before that TFC2 ore may be reduce per-block, but even at vanilla levels, 72 normal ore is only 18 ingots.  Not a ton by any means, but still enough for a lot of tools and some armor.  So maybe stack size of ore blocks is 4, or ore yield is smaller, but however that shakes out, the point is to try and make the max ore blocks carryable not all that great.  Barrels are no longer an attractive long-range transport, and ore blocks can't fit in backpacks.  It'd be a fine balancing act between making early-game ore processing not be too onerous, but still keeping conveyance useful in both early and later phases of the game.  I think processing ore blocks to get ore will help because you can bring in tiered processing that varies the yield.  Early game processing would be easily mobile, but low-yield, while late game would be very expensive and tough to move, but higher yield.

    So, coming full-circle, I've tried to keep to Konlii's suggestion, but I've tried to reduce the need for number in the thousands, with drastically encumbering unstackables, by introducing a mechanic of hotbar-only items.  I think this would allow for a greater number of low-tier encumbrances, and reduce the need for a huge upper limit, by keeping items we want to control the numbers of limited to the hotbar, which will already have regular tools and such competing for that space.

    0

  16. It's probably useful to keep in mind that Bioxx's stated goal with even bringing weight into the game is to bring an actual need for conveyances.    And due to the way minecraft stack sizes work, we can't make the player's inventory have a fraction of the stack sizes of, for instance, minecarts.    Apparently the stack size limit is innate to the item, and if a container (e.g. the player's inventory) limits stack size, then *all* stacks have the same limit - they're all 'chopped down' to the same level.  So if a minecart allows stacks of up to 64, but the player's inventory is limited to stack sizes of 16, then the player's inventory will limit *all* stacks to 16.  So native-16 stacks will be the same, 32s will be halved, and 64s will be quartered.  So it makes it hard to make minecarts superior, because in vanilla code the player's inventory allows all stacks sizes.  So in a vanilla context your only solutions would be to 1) blanket-limit the player inventory - which would become inconsistent having all stacks the same limit.  2) increase the slots of minecarts to be much better than player's slots - impractical given the player inventory is already huge, or 3) increase minecart slots AND reduce player slots, to keep the number of minecart slots sane, but still superior to player slots.  I would guess that at a minimum, solution 3 would require minecart slots of 36 (a 33% increase over vanilla), and player slots of half that: 18 (a 33% reduction from vanilla player inventory slots).  I do now know if slot numbers higher than 36 are allowed, but if not these are inelegant solutions, and don't allow for a lot of fine gradation.   Because stacks sizes are not scale-able (only chop-able) and slots can quickly get out of hand I think.

    So, enter a third factor to make the system more fine-tuneable.  TFC1 added size to the equation, but it didn't really utilize it very well.  You basically had 'items that fit in vessels', 'items that you can only carry on your back', and everything else.  And it was not implemented consistently (querns and beds in vessels anyone?).  But it added much-need variety to the inventory system.   Now for TFC2 - as either a fourth, or replacement-third factor - arrives weight/encumbrance.   I think the game *needs* a third factor *at least* if there is to be any progression at all in terms of containers, or use for more than one conveyance.  Slots and stacks alone are not a finely scale-able system.  I think most people were fine with the size mechanics in TFC1, and I think it was an excellent third factor.  I still think it is enough, without weight being tossed into the mix.  But that's for another post.  So my point is, 2 factors are not enough, you should count size as a third factor already, and weight should be discussed as a fourth factor.

    Regarding armor speed debuffs, I'm not a big fan of speed debuffs, generally speaking, but they do have their place and I could see armor being such a place, especially in single player.   But it would need to be supported - and by that I mean you would need to provide the player a way to carry their armor on their horse or cart, without using every inch of capacity (so there's room for loot), to the dungeon or whatever, and then they put it on right before going in.  That or the debuffs will need to be finely tuned to be noticeable, but not onerous (30% sounds kind of onerous to me).  But it would be another hook for smithing skill and magic, and maybe even different types of armor, and in that sense I support it.  I don't think material type should play into it, I think material type should affect tier vs. tier damage, and maximum enchantment tier.  By different types of armor, what I mean is rather than having breastplates with 1 to 3 layers, you would have chain, scale, and plate armor (for example).  And those would have the differing speeds debuffs.  More graphics, but also more variety.

    0

  17. Tree Felling - like it.  You're saying the existing living tree logs turn into rubble in place?  not only trunk, but also the branches up in the air? So the player has to be careful where they stand lest they be hit with falling tree rubble? 

    Skill level - Not sure adding skill level into the time-to-mine equation is a good idea.  It's already a small enough difference just using metal tiers.   I don't like the idea of tool racks being tier 2.  Not sure about ladders either, but that might depend on how ores and mining shake out.  Doors and gates as tier 3 might be excessive.  Is it assumed then that the player will just have to use ladders or palisades with jump-gaps, or dirt blocks, until then?  In that context one of the best loot items from early game dungeons will be doors (unless they don't have them).   Making wooden buckets masterful might be a bit of a stretch.  How about clay buckets randomly break, wood buckets have durability (they rot), and metal buckets last forever (or have higher durability, at least)?  From a game balance perspective I'm not clear what the advantage of wood barrels is that makes them advanced tier, aside from a presumably slightly larger inventory.

    Log Refining - an interesting system, but what can one do with timber aside from making sawhorses?  Is it purely just a limited-use intermediate step?  Can one make ladders or fences with it?

    Moisture - though it appeals to my detailed side, seems like a bit too much probably. 

    Coopering - That's a lot of steps.  As mentioned above, what advantages are you envisioning for barrels, vs large vessels?  In TFC1 is was 33% more inventory, or double the liquid capacity.  I do like the idea of barrels being harder to come by, just not sure THAT much harder...

    So in general, skill benefits the player in terms of getting higher lumber yield?  It doesn't affect finished product?  Also tree felling speed as suggested, but I'm not sure that's a good idea, unless felling times go up quite a bit.   Overall I like giving a greater sense of accomplishment and process.  I do think it would result in some of these items becoming important dungeon loot, although they'd probably be very heavy, so not very lootable.  I could easily forsee the basic result being that the player just moves into dungeons for the early game, for easy access to doors and chests.  Unless dungeons have special rules where mobs will spawn in them no matter light level or player time spent.  Or early game dungeons don't have doors and chests.  But that's getting OT.  

    Personally I'd like to see more item-level benefits to the skill, so it's not all so predicated on time and output.  I've been mulling a lot of container ideas so maybe I'll make a post on that.

    0

  18. 19 hours ago, mup6897 said:

    how do you fire the jug i cant get anything to work

    You dig a 2-deep pit.  Place the jug in the bottom (no shifting required).  Unlike TFC1, now only 1 item fits in a pit at a time.  now right click four grass (not shift-place), which will fill up the bottom cube.  Now make a firestarter, and right click on the grass till it lights.  Unlike TFC1, you now only get a few campfire-like flames, not a roaring inferno.  Once the fire is started, place a log on top (not shift-place).  Just one log, placed as normal.  Not 8 like TFC1 (so the log cost has went down from 2 per item, to 1 per item).  The top of the log should be flush with the top of the ground, and you should see smoke coming off it.  now place a dirt block on top of the log.  You should see smoke coming off the dirt block.  Now wait 8 hours.  When it's done, the grass is replaced by charcoal, and the log disappears, so the dirt will fall down flush with the ground.  If you're not there when it happens, and come back later, the dirt can grow grass on top, and so appear as if everything vanished (so you may actually want to make the pit one deep, and build the next level above ground, so it's easier to tell where it is if you lose track).  Dig up the dirt block, dig up the charcoal, and the fired jug will be at the bottom.  You can break it or right click with an empty hand to get it.

    And btw, you can actually place the jug on level ground, and place the straw cube on top, exposed.  But near as I can tell it won't light without having suitable walls around it, and 1 level above it (logs are not suitable, for instance).

    On the topic of tree-elks, they are majestic except they sound like bear, and man, when they drop down on you from a tree you just cut, that is exciting!  Also they will 1-hit kill you.  So enjoy their majesty from afar, or at least don't antagonize them.

    1

  19. It's a way, and I like it, as I see a couple advantages to the system.  I'm curious what relative advantages/disadvantages you see in this system?   Is it mainly the trying to shut down arguments about "real" weights of items?  Because I'd say that's a valid advantage.  The other advantage would be the player could configure the encumbrance points by class, and alter the overall scheme much faster than if they had to alter every individual item.   That also does seem like a big advantage.  Just curious if there's any other considerations.  Also I'd suggest perhaps tiers beyond "immobilizing", for vehicle conveyance.  I'd like to see items that immobilize the player, but can be carried in a cart (full barrels, beds), and yet more items that are too heavy for a cart but can be carried in a minecart (I would place bloomery and blast furnace in this category).  With donkeys and horses playing in there somehow.  Maybe replace "immobilizing" with "massive", followed by huge, mammoth, and gargantuan, if necessary? 

    Beyond those generalities, how do you see a full player kit playing out?  Since TFC2 seems like it's basically going to have a building/mining phase, where you're in a conquered island and building or gathering resources, and then a conquering phase where you're in unconquered land and can't break blocks, it does seem reasonable to have heavy armor take significant weight, since the player won't really have any reason to carry blocks in the conquering phase.   Then they could switch to lighter armors during building/mining, in theory.  So in the conquering phase, what should the player be able to carry?  Chest plate is far from the only armor and I feel like 1/3 would be a bit much.  You've got 4 body armor slots, plus a shield, plus a weapon, could be considered the basic kit.  Should we not consider what this entire kit should take first, rather than a specific piece?  What will the player be likely to carry beyond armor and weapons?   Healing items and food?  Maybe repair materials if that's a thing.  But they also need to have some room left for looting right?  We're not going to expect them to conquer first and come back to loot later are we?  They may not be able to fully conquer on the first go, we need to allow them to take away whatever loot they can surely.  I would forsee ingots, ore, books, and weapons and armor being important loot items.  Where would these fall in your weight system?  Light for books, medium for the rest?

     

    0

  20. My impression is that using Harvestcraft is the long-term plan.   However, there is reason to believe that getting the initial crops from gardens is not set in stone, but perhaps just expedient for now.  If you're asking if there will be a mix of Harvestcraft foodstuff, and native TFC2 stuff, hard to tell.  But if you want more stuff, for now you may do better to suggest stuff to Pam, maybe.  Which may only be doable through her patreon, maybe.

    0

  21. Ya, I think that might work.  Hard to know for sure till we see it in action.  If you're good with it, go ahead and put *final* in the title.

    0

  22. Yes, looks good.  Neck box needs a proper name though.  And the head gizmo is still in the wrong spot and the head box too long, if the turtle is ever going to look to the sides.  It needs to have a z position of around -1, and then you'll have to modify the z offset of the head, jaw, and lip, to get them back in the right spots, and shorten the head box.  Just rotate the head on the Y axis, and you should see what I mean about it clipping into the shell.

    0